Podcasts about startfragment

El nuevo 'Cualquier tiempo pasado fue anterior' que ha preparado para este mes Nieves Concostrina con Emma Vallespinós, Ana Valtierra, Pepe Rubio y Jesús Pozo trata sobre la figura del único hijo superviviente de Felipe II. Don Carlos, que murió en la habitación donde lo había encerrado su padre tras once días en huelga de hambre, tenía 23 años y, entre otras cosas era un despilfarrador, borde, agresivo, iracundo y cruel con los inferiores. En la técnica del programa está María Jesús Rodríguez.

Los Goya desvelan las actuaciones musicales de 2026 con Ana Mena, Belén Aguilera y Bad Gyal. Leire Martínez habla sobre su primer álbum. Aitana vuelve a las redes sociales para celebrar un nuevo logro. Hannah Montana ya está produciendo su 20 aniversario. Bad Bunny se cuela en la final de Baloncesto de la Copa del Rey.  

DePol se une al festival de festivales pop. Crónica del concierto de Judeline en Madrid. Todo sobre Sanremo 2026. Cuando el festival Primavera Sound costaba 4.500 pesetas y duraba solo un día. Esta semana: los Premios Goya y los Premios Brit 2026.

Con el catedrático en Microbiología y director del Museo de Ciencias de la UNAV, Ignacio López Goñi

Espacio de reflexión con Ricardo Piñero, filósofo y profesor universitario

Espacio sobre temática LGTBIQ+

Descripción audio: Con el historiador Jaime Aznar 

La actividad de las ONGs de Navarra

Con las divulgadoras en nutrición Yolanda Vélaz y María Marqués 

¡Qué buen día el que tuvimos hoy, gracias a Aleks Syntek por la plática, pronto el episodio completo! La presidenta habla de cuánto cobrará de pensión al jubilarse, ¿será? Monri VS Monri, ¿a quién le van, hay división en Morena? Dos iluminados en deportes, el Chicharito hablando de pájaros y Faitelson aconsejando al 'Vasco'. ¡Los Therias qué! Lo de hoy son los Messirians y los Cristurrys. Y Yeri Mua pide permiso para fumar en pleno concierto.

Eray Cömert debió darse cuenta el mismo domingo por la noche, estando todavía en Orriols, del error que había cometido con el tema del banderín. Así se lo reconoció a algún compañero de vestuario y así lo demuestra que se esforzara por conseguir el teléfono de Héctor Rodas para enviarle un mensaje conciliador. Al acabar el partido y la polémica celebración sobre el campo se produjo un tumulto entre miembros de ambos equipos en el túnel de vestuarios. En ese barullo estuveron Cömert y el director deportivo del Levante, muy molesto con Eray. La intención del suizo era disculparse y rebajar la tensión generada con su equívoca celebración. Veremos si el asunto tiene hoy capítulos extra cuando LaLiga haga público el informe de partido. Intuyo que esto no ha acabado.

Harry Styles habla por primera vez de lo que ocurrió realmente tras One Direction. Beyoncé ha revolucionado internet con su último carrusel de fotos desde la Super Bowl… y todo por un detalle inesperado. Café Quijano nos confirma nuevas canciones de cara a 2026. Ed Sheeran ha sorprendido a los 70.000 fans que llenaron el Accor Stadium de Sídney al contar la historia real detrás de Old Phone. Lola Índigo arrasa en Nueva York con sus looks en la Semana de la moda. 

El Valencia se impuso en el derbi contra el Levante ayer en Orriols. Un 0-2, con goles de Ramazani y Sadiq, que permite al equipo de Mestalla salir de la zona de descenso en la que se había metido antes del partido y complica al equipo granota, que jugará muy exigido el aplazado del miércoles contra el Villarreal. A veces el fútbol es muy sencillo de explicar. El Valencia ha invertido diez millones en el mercado de enero y dos de sus tres fichajes de invierno, más Javi Guerra, fueron decisivos. Los tres fueron determinantes, por actitud y por criterio con balón, para el 0-2 definitivo. Puede que el Valencia no tenga plantilla para exigirle Europa. Pero, sin duda, como se vio ayer, tiene jugadores para no pasar tantas penurias a estas alturas de la temporada.

Con el catedrático en Microbiología y director del Museo de Ciencias de la UNAV, Ignacio López Goñi

Espacio sobre cine y series con María Castejón, crítica de cine y especializada en feminismo

Con el historiador Jaime Aznar 

La actividad de las ONGs de Navarra

Con las divulgadoras en nutrición Yolanda Vélaz y María Marqués 

EL VALENCIA CF ESTÁ INTERESADO EN EL FICHAJE DE VÍCTOR GÓMEZ PARA LA TEMPORADA 2026-27. El lateral derecho del Braga es uno de los objetivos del club de Mestalla. Las continuas lesiones de Thierry Correia y la intervención quirúrgica de Foulquier activan el mercado de laterales derechos pensando en el próximo curso. Además, hemos contado la última hora deportiva del derbi y el análisis de Jose Luis Oltra

Arranca Benidorm Fest 2026. Las maquetas de El Canto del Loco que dieron forma a los himnos de la banda. Emilia vuelve al estudio y su nueva canción es una declaración de intenciones. En LOS40 Classic: Cuando Bob Dylan se defendió de sus detractores poniendo el ventilador y atacó a Leonard Cohen. Concurso: Gana dos entradas para el concierto de sombr en Madrid, con M&G incluido.

Entrevistamos a la cantante Laaza y vuelve la Coplanovela, de la mano de Arturo González-Campos.

Un populista proclama lo que nadie se atreve a decir para fardar de que a él no le da miedo decir esas cosas. A los demás tampoco nos da miedo, más bien nos da vergüenza. Un populista es un sinvergüenza disfrazado de valiente. Pero es un valor de pacotilla.

Vuelve la esencia más pura de Las Noches de Ortega: escuchar vuestras preocupaciones, queridos oyentes. 

Vuelve la esencia más pura de Las Noches de Ortega: escuchar vuestras preocupaciones, queridos oyentes. 

¿Me prestas tu pluma ? Se descompuso el botón de rewind.

No vamos de boda superpijamegaguay. Los protagonistas de este nuevo “Cualquier tiempo pasado fue anterior” son la infanta Juana de Castilla, hija de los Reyes Católicos, y el archiduque Felipe de Austria, hijo del emperador Maximiliano. Boda por acuerdo político entre las coronas, firmado en Amberes el 20 de enero de 1495, cuando la nena Juana tenía 15 años recién cumplidos, y el nene Felipe 16. Y algo más sobre la que luego fue reina Juana I de Castilla. Con Nieves Concostrina, Emma Vallespinós, Ana Valtierra, Jesús Pozo, Pepe Rubio y María Jesús Rodríguez.

No vamos de boda superpijamegaguay. Los protagonistas de este nuevo “Cualquier tiempo pasado fue anterior” son la infanta Juana de Castilla, hija de los Reyes Católicos, y el archiduque Felipe de Austria, hijo del emperador Maximiliano. Boda por acuerdo político entre las coronas, firmado en Amberes el 20 de enero de 1495, cuando la nena Juana tenía 15 años recién cumplidos, y el nene Felipe 16. Y algo más sobre la que luego fue reina Juana I de Castilla. Con Nieves Concostrina, Emma Vallespinós, Ana Valtierra, Jesús Pozo, Pepe Rubio y María Jesús Rodríguez.

Santa Penya elabora pequeños sketches sobre la actualidad política que nos invade cada día.

Santa Penya elabora pequeños sketches sobre la actualidad política que nos invade cada día.

Tu esposa se va a enterar.

Entrevistamos a la carta a Susi Caramelo. Y damos luz (con Luz) a la dislexia.

Funciona muy bien cuando está calientita.

  Rabbi Zeira raises the question of an offering designated for a private altar: if it was slaughtered on the private altar, then brought into the Tabernacle, and afterward taken back out, must it now be returned to the Tabernacle and treated like a public‑altar sacrifice with all its associated requirements? Initially, the Gemara suggests that this issue might hinge on the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding high level sanctity offerings that were slaughtered in the South instead of the required Northern area and were then mistakenly placed on the altar. Ultimately, however, the Gemara distinguishes between the two cases and rejects the comparison. Another discussion concerns a sacrifice slaughtered at night on a private altar. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether such an offering is valid. Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan also dispute whether burnt offerings brought on private altars require hefshet and nituach - flaying and cutting into pieces - just as they do on the public altar. Although private altars operate with fewer restrictions, several laws apply equally to both private and public offerings. A braita entertains the possibility that time‑based limitations might not apply to private‑altar sacrifices, just as spatial limitations do not. However, a verse is cited to demonstrate that time restrictions indeed remain binding even for offerings brought on private altars.

  Rabbi Zeira raises the question of an offering designated for a private altar: if it was slaughtered on the private altar, then brought into the Tabernacle, and afterward taken back out, must it now be returned to the Tabernacle and treated like a public‑altar sacrifice with all its associated requirements? Initially, the Gemara suggests that this issue might hinge on the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding high level sanctity offerings that were slaughtered in the South instead of the required Northern area and were then mistakenly placed on the altar. Ultimately, however, the Gemara distinguishes between the two cases and rejects the comparison. Another discussion concerns a sacrifice slaughtered at night on a private altar. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether such an offering is valid. Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan also dispute whether burnt offerings brought on private altars require hefshet and nituach - flaying and cutting into pieces - just as they do on the public altar. Although private altars operate with fewer restrictions, several laws apply equally to both private and public offerings. A braita entertains the possibility that time‑based limitations might not apply to private‑altar sacrifices, just as spatial limitations do not. However, a verse is cited to demonstrate that time restrictions indeed remain binding even for offerings brought on private altars.

¡Feliz día de Reyes amigos! Damos por concluido el Guadalupe-Reyes e inauguramos el Reyes-Guadalupe. Una persona compró 1000 roscas para revender, ¿qué opinan al respecto? Y hablando de roscas el presidente municipal de Huandacareo nos habla de la suya. Llegaron laspipsas al Pentágono, acá les contamos. Llega el 'Barrio del Chibolo'. ¿Joya, aberración? Decidan ustedes.

The Gemara explains that the Mishna follows Rabbi Nechemia's opinion regarding the status of the remainder of the blood. Why did the Mishna compare the case of two cups of blood to a sin offering that was lost and replaced with another? The Gemara explains that this comparison was introduced in order to teach the law regarding a case that can be derived from the Mishna. It clarifies the distinction between an animal designated to replace a lost offering and a situation in which a person designates two animals from the outset so that one will serve as a backup. The Mishna presents numerous cases in which the laws of offering sacrifices outside the Temple do not apply - either because of the type of offering (one that is not brought inside the Temple) or because of the animal itself (a disqualified animal), or because the item is not meant to be offered at all (such as edible portion of a sacrifice). Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the rabbis in three cases where the item will eventually be permitted to be placed on the altar.  The Mishna also provides a historical overview: When were sacrifices permitted to be offered outside the Temple (on bamot), and when were they prohibited? What were the laws governing each period - both when bamot were allowed and when they were forbidden? And during the time when bamot were permitted, which sacrifices could be offered anywhere?  

MBC Prince William | Stones of Faithfulness: Remembering What God Has Done (Joshua 4) | Keith Seymour 

The Gemara explains that the Mishna follows Rabbi Nechemia's opinion regarding the status of the remainder of the blood. Why did the Mishna compare the case of two cups of blood to a sin offering that was lost and replaced with another? The Gemara explains that this comparison was introduced in order to teach the law regarding a case that can be derived from the Mishna. It clarifies the distinction between an animal designated to replace a lost offering and a situation in which a person designates two animals from the outset so that one will serve as a backup. The Mishna presents numerous cases in which the laws of offering sacrifices outside the Temple do not apply - either because of the type of offering (one that is not brought inside the Temple) or because of the animal itself (a disqualified animal), or because the item is not meant to be offered at all (such as edible portion of a sacrifice). Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the rabbis in three cases where the item will eventually be permitted to be placed on the altar.  The Mishna also provides a historical overview: When were sacrifices permitted to be offered outside the Temple (on bamot), and when were they prohibited? What were the laws governing each period - both when bamot were allowed and when they were forbidden? And during the time when bamot were permitted, which sacrifices could be offered anywhere?  

  The rabbis and Rabbi Elazar disagree about a case involving liability for performing water libations outside the Temple. Three amoraim debate the precise scenario in which they disagree and the underlying basis of their dispute. According to Rav Papa, their disagreement stems from a debate - found in other sources as well - regarding whether libations accompanied sacrifices during the Israelites' time in the desert. This question has practical implications for whether libations were ever offered on private bamot, and whether such libations required sanctified vessels. That, in turn, affects whether one would be liable for performing a libation outside the Temple when it was not placed in a sanctified vessel. Rabbi Nechemia maintains that one is liable for offering the remainder of the blood outside. Rabbi Yochanan explains that this view is rooted in Rabbi Nechemia's position that the pouring of the leftover blood is an essential component of the sacrificial rite. A challenge is raised from a baraita in which Rabbi Nechemia debates Rabbi Akiva on this very issue, but the contradiction is ultimately resolved. The sugya then analyzes liability for offering a bird sacrifice outside the Temple: does liability depend on whether the bird was slaughtered (shechita) or melika was performed inside or outside? All four possible combinations are examined. Rabbi Shimon disputes one of the rabbis' rulings, but it is initially unclear what aspect of their position he rejects. After systematically eliminating all possibilities, the Gemara proposes three explanations - either expanding the Mishna to include another case or revising the formulation of Rabbi Shimon's statement as it appears there.  

  The rabbis and Rabbi Elazar disagree about a case involving liability for performing water libations outside the Temple. Three amoraim debate the precise scenario in which they disagree and the underlying basis of their dispute. According to Rav Papa, their disagreement stems from a debate - found in other sources as well - regarding whether libations accompanied sacrifices during the Israelites' time in the desert. This question has practical implications for whether libations were ever offered on private bamot, and whether such libations required sanctified vessels. That, in turn, affects whether one would be liable for performing a libation outside the Temple when it was not placed in a sanctified vessel. Rabbi Nechemia maintains that one is liable for offering the remainder of the blood outside. Rabbi Yochanan explains that this view is rooted in Rabbi Nechemia's position that the pouring of the leftover blood is an essential component of the sacrificial rite. A challenge is raised from a baraita in which Rabbi Nechemia debates Rabbi Akiva on this very issue, but the contradiction is ultimately resolved. The sugya then analyzes liability for offering a bird sacrifice outside the Temple: does liability depend on whether the bird was slaughtered (shechita) or melika was performed inside or outside? All four possible combinations are examined. Rabbi Shimon disputes one of the rabbis' rulings, but it is initially unclear what aspect of their position he rejects. After systematically eliminating all possibilities, the Gemara proposes three explanations - either expanding the Mishna to include another case or revising the formulation of Rabbi Shimon's statement as it appears there.  

Sí, es mi prima

En la catedral de Lleida se exhibió durante siete siglos el primer pañal que recogió la primera santa caca del niño Jesús. Las pajitas del pesebre se pueden comprar en subastas de Internet. Y ampollas de la virgen María cuando daba de mamar hay por doquier. Son las supercherías católicas de las que hablamos en una fechas muy bien inventadas por la multinacional. Un nuevo episodio con Nieves Concostrina, Emma Vallespinós, Ana Valtierra, Jesús Pozo, Pepe Rubio y, en la técnica, María Jesús Rodríguez.

Le invitaría un vuelve a la vida.

Rav held that Moshe served as a kohen gadol. Four tannaitic sources are brought to challenge this position, but each one is ultimately resolved. A braita is then cited to show that whether Moshe was a kohen gadol is itself a tannaitic dispute. One of the tannaitic views in that debate cites a statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korcha: whenever the Torah uses the expression charon af,  anger, it implies some concrete action or consequence. His statement is challenged by the verse in Shemot 11:8, where Moshe becomes angry at Pharaoh, yet no action seems to follow. Reish Lakish resolves this by saying that Moshe slapped Pharaoh in the face. This explanation is challenged by another statement of Reish Lakish, in which he says that Moshe showed respect toward Pharaoh. Two answers are offered to reconcile these conflicting statements. Two verses are then brought to support the principle that one must show respect to a king, even a wicked king, one verse concerning Pharaoh and another concerning Ahab. Earlier, a source had referred to Moshe as a king. However, Ulla stated that Moshe desired to be king but was not granted that status. Rava resolves this by qualifying Ulla's statement: Moshe wished for his sons to inherit kingship, and that request was denied, but Moshe himself was indeed considered a king. The Gemara then asks: from where do we derive that kohanim with any type of blemish are entitled to receive portions of the priestly gifts? Four braitot are cited, each offering a drasha that builds upon the previous one. The Mishna states that those who cannot serve in the Temple do not receive a portion, which seems to contradict the ruling regarding blemished kohanim. Furthermore, the implication that those who do serve may eat is difficult in the case of impure kohanim during communal offerings, where they may serve, yet do not receive a portion. The Gemara explains how this contradiction is resolved. Rav relates that Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon was once in the bathroom and devised various arguments that a tevul yom might use to claim a share of sacrificial portions. Yet for every argument he proposed, a pure kohen could cite a verse proving that a tevul yom is excluded, since he cannot perform the Temple service. The Gemara then asks: how was Rabbi Elazar able to think Torah thoughts in the bathroom, something that is normally forbidden?  

Study Guide Three additional resolutions, bringing the total to five, are proposed to reconcile the contradiction between the two baraitot, each of which presents a different view of Rabbi Shimon on whether an onen may eat the Pesach offering at night. A challenge is raised against the third resolution, evidence is presented in support of the fourth, and a statement of Rava bar Rav Huna is cited to bolster the fifth.

Dios no existe, abuelo.

Study Guide The Gemara examines the debate between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yehuda regarding whether leather garments stained with blood from a sin offering require laundering. A braita cites verses in the Torah as the source for each position, with the disagreement hinging on how to interpret the term "beged." Rabbi Yehuda understands "beged" to include any material potentially capable of receiving impurity, while according to Rabbi Elazar it includes sackcloth and other types of clothing that are actually susceptible to impurity. Abaye and Rava identify three practical differences that emerge from their interpretations. Another braita establishes that only the specific area of a garment where blood lands requires laundering, not the entire garment. The Gemara then derives from the Mishna that hides are subject to laundering, but cites a conflicting source related to Shabbat observance, which rules that rinsing a hide with water is not considered laundering. Abaye resolves the contradiction by attributing one view to the Rabbis and the other to "others," who include hides in laundering. Rava challenges this, citing verses that explicitly mention leather, and concludes that the distinction lies between soft and hard hides. After raising two difficulties with his own explanation, Rava proposes a third approach: differentiating between scrubbing, which constitutes laundering, and merely pouring or soaking with water, which does not. The Gemara then cites a braita deriving from verses that laundering, breaking earthenware vessels, and rinsing copper vessels must all be performed in the Azara. The Mishna rules that laundering is the only stringency unique to the sin offering compared to other offerings, though the Gemara questions this in light of other possible stringencies. The Mishna further teaches that if a garment with blood, an earthenware vessel, or a copper vessel in which meat was cooked leaves the Azara and becomes impure, the impurity must first be removed - by tearing, making a hole, or otherwise invalidating the vessel - and then the item is returned to the Azara to be laundered, broken, or rinsed. Ravina challenges the ruling that an impure garment is torn outside and then laundered inside: if tearing removes its status as a garment, how can the obligation to launder be fulfilled? The Gemara clarifies that the case refers to tearing along the length without splitting it into two pieces, which is sufficient to remove impurity while still leaving it with the status of a garment for laundering.    

  Raba and Rav Chisda disagree on two issues. If items were not completely consumed on the altar, removed before midnight, and returned after midnight, at what point are they considered "consumed" such that they no longer need to be put back on the altar if removed again (assuming they have not yet turned to ash, in which case they would not need to be returned)? Raba rules that they are considered consumed at midnight of the following night, while Rav Chisda holds that the cutoff is dawn. If the items were not returned until after dawn, Raba still maintains that midnight of the next night renders them consumed, whereas Rav Chisda insists they can never be rendered consumed. Rav Yosef challenges the premise of both opinions, which assume that items not on the altar at midnight cannot be rendered consumed. He argues instead that midnight itself renders all items consumed, even if they were removed before midnight and not yet returned to the altar. Rava asked Raba: If items remain at the top of the altar all night, does that prevent them from becoming disqualified through lina (remaining overnight)? Raba answered that they are not disqualified, but Rava did not accept this response. A braita is cited, providing a source in the Torah that the ramp and sanctified vessels also sanctify disqualified items. If such items are placed on the ramp or the altar, they do not need to be removed. Reish Lakish posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding disqualified items placed in sanctified vessels. Initially, Rabbi Yochanan thought the question was whether they were sanctified to the extent that they could not be redeemed. Reish Lakish clarified that he was asking whether items placed in sanctified vessels could be brought ab initio on the altar. Rabbi Yochanan answered yes, based on the Mishna, but this answer was rejected since the Mishna could be read differently. The Gemara then asks: Does the airspace of the altar sanctify items? At first, it attempts to prove that the airspace does sanctify from the Mishna's statement: "Just as the altar sanctifies, so does the ramp." Items sanctified by the ramp must be carried through the altar's airspace to reach it. If the airspace does not sanctify, then carrying them would be akin to removing them, and once removed, they could not be returned. However, this proof is rejected, since it is possible to bring them to the altar by dragging rather than lifting. Rava bar Rav Chanan then attempts to prove the opposite from the case of a bird burnt offering brought at the top of the altar. If the airspace sanctifies, then there could be no case of pigul (disqualification due to improper intent), because as long as the offering remains on the altar, it could be sacrificed even the next day. Thus, a thought to offer it the next day would not constitute pigul. Rav Shimi rejects this argument, explaining that one could still have a pigul thought to remove the offering and then put it back on the altar the next day, which would indeed be disqualifying.

Right About Now with Ryan Alford Join media personality and marketing expert Ryan Alford as he dives into dynamic conversations with top entrepreneurs, marketers, and influencers. "Right About Now" brings you actionable insights on business, marketing, and personal branding, helping you stay ahead in today's fast-paced digital world. Whether it's exploring how character and charisma can make millions or unveiling the strategies behind viral success, Ryan delivers a fresh perspective with every episode. Perfect for anyone looking to elevate their business game and unlock their full potential.     Resources: Right About Now Newsletter | Free Podcast Monetization Course | Join The Network |Follow Us On Instagram | Subscribe To Our Youtube Channel | Vibe Science Media SUMMARY In this episode of "Right About Now," host Ryan Alford interviews Sawyer Hemsley, co-founder and COO of Crumbl Cookies. Sawyer shares Crumbl’s journey from a college side hustle to a tech-driven bakery empire with over 500 stores. The conversation covers their unique rotating menu, innovative marketing strategies, and in-house technology that powers seamless customer experiences. Sawyer also discusses the challenges of rapid growth, maintaining quality, and building a strong brand identity. The episode offers insights into entrepreneurship, brand building, and the power of combining tradition with innovation in the food industry. TAKEAWAYS Origin story of Crumbl Cookies as a side hustle Development of a tech-driven bakery model Unique rotating menu of cookie flavors Rapid growth to over 500 stores in under four years Integration of custom-built technology for customer experience Importance of family recipes and customer feedback in product development Franchise model evolution and community-driven expansion Marketing strategies, including social media engagement and branding In-store experience and sensory elements of visiting Crumbl locations Challenges of entrepreneurship and maintaining brand consistency across locations

México buscará romper 3 récords Guinness en el Mundial. ¡¡¡A huev...!!! Hablando de deportes, fuertes palabras que le dijo el Dr a Martinoli, ¿será el divorcio? ¿Qué dice 'El perro' Bermúdez, Memo 8A va al mundial? A Shakira le hace falta el aparato reproductor y a la Beli se le andan saliendo las shishes, ¡qué círculo rosa les tenemos!